I've always wondered how much of the world superpower is sold to us as "to keep us safe" when the honest reality is "too feed our national ego". I do believe that the world is a safer place than it was 30 years ago. But I can't think of a conflict since WWII where U.S. efforts in the region seemed to be the stabilizing factor.
"The U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes." http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/20...
"American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math" http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/america...
Yes, you could cut military expenditure and push the money elsewhere. I really think unless you change things about the way that money gets spent you are just tossing it away.
> I can't think of a conflict since WWII where U.S. efforts in the region seemed to be the stabilizing factor.
Korea First Iraq war Yugoslavia
The US presence in Europe and NATO creation during the cold war?
That sounds great, but even more than that I hope you want for them to be alive and free. Without a strong national defense, their chances of survival as free citizens are pretty low.
Where does this sentiment come from, the same as in the argument that the USA protects Europe? Do you really believe all countries would constantly try invade each other if they had less weapons? Citizens are not that eager to get killed on the battlefield, especially in developed notion with pretty good living standards at home. Maybe I am a bit idealistic but I just can not imagine the world falling apart if we had lesson weapons. I am not saying zero weapons, it is certainly not a bad idea to have some defense capabilities just in case, but being prepared to fight another world war seems over the top to me.
While I don't necessarily agree with the large US military spending, I feel better knowing we have more national defense than necessary rather than not enough/just enough.
I don't think this is an accurate statement.